Communication systems are well known in which persons (using, for example, wireless or wireline phones) may receive periodic telephone calls from other persons or devices dialing a unique directory number of the called party phone. Far too frequently, these calls are nuisance calls that are undesired by the called party. Examples of nuisance calls include, without limitation, telemarketer calls, incorrectly dialed (i.e., “wrong number”) calls, crank calls and perhaps even calls from acquaintances or family members, particularly if they are received too frequently or at inopportune times. Whatever the case may be, most call recipients do not wish to answer nuisance calls, yet if the calls are left unanswered, they are inevitably received over and over again. A related problem is that due to variances in individual recipients, a particular caller may be a nuisance to one recipient but not unwelcome to another. Indeed, even the same recipient may change views of particular callers from time to time, such that caller(s) that were once welcome (or at least not unwelcome) can become a nuisance and vice versa.
A variety of systems have been devised to reduce the inconvenience of nuisance calls. These systems include, among others, call screening and alerting mechanisms. Call screening includes, e.g., use of an answering machine to answer calls, whereby after a series of rings, the caller is prompted to leave a message and the recipient (if present and listening to the message as it is being recorded) may choose to interrupt the message and answer the call (or not). Call alerting includes, e.g., caller identification (“caller ID”) services, whereby the phone number of an incoming caller is displayed on the recipient's phone and the recipient, if present, may choose to answer the call (or not). Both call screening and alerting systems offer the recipient an informed basis for choosing to answer (or not answer) the call and in such manner, the recipient may avoid certain nuisance calls. Nevertheless, screening and alerting mechanisms do not prevent repeated occurrences of calls from nuisance callers—each time an incoming call occurs, the recipient is disrupted by a series of rings and must actively listen to a message or observe a caller ID to determine whether to answer the call. Related problems arise in that certain callers may “abandon” calls (i.e., without leaving a message) or caller ID may be blocked or spoofed so that the recipient is unable to determine the source or nature of the call.
Systems for reducing nuisance calls have also been proposed legislatively. In the United States, a national “do-not-call” registry is expected to be implemented beginning in summer 2003 under the auspices of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This system is intended to restrict telemarketing calls by imposing fines on telemarketers who call persons registered on the do-not-call list. Similar plans have been enacted in some states. Nevertheless, although the FTC system may reduce telemarketer calls, it will not stop all telemarketer calls because exceptions are granted for certain excepted businesses including, for example, airlines, banks, telephone companies and charities, as well as businesses calling from within the same state. Exceptions are also triggered, allowing a company to call certain persons if those persons have bought, leased or rented anything from the company within the last 18 months; or inquired or applied for something from the company during the past 3 months. Moreover, even when exceptions do not apply, registered persons are not immune from telemarketer calls because the FTC system does not block impermissible telemarketer calls but rather imposes fines when such calls occur. The burden is on the telemarketer to check the registry if it wishes to avoid the fine. Thus, although the FTC system may legally prohibit a portion of telemarketer calls, it does not provide for physically blocking calls of any kind; and in any case, the recipient does not control which callers are legally prohibited.
Another alternative system is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,289,084 (“the Bushnell patent”), assigned to the assignee of the present invention. The system of the Bushnell patent provides for affording different call treatments to different incoming calls based on the priorities of the respective callers within an affinity database, which is created automatically based on call activity of a customer and optionally, may be manually overrode or supplemented by the customer. Based on the affinity database, for example, calls from high-affinity numbers may be given a distinctive ring; conversely, calls from low-affinity numbers (or numbers not in the affinity database) may be diverted to a messaging system or blocked altogether without answering or messaging of any kind. In such manner, the system of the Bushnell patent may be used to block certain telemarketer and other nuisance calls. However, a problem that arises is that the Bushnell system, if so used to block nuisance calls, would effectively block all first-time callers, infrequent callers as well as unidentifiable calls (i.e., not including caller ID information). Generally, such a result is overkill in that at least a portion of first-time, infrequent or unidentifiable callers, even certain telemarketer calls, might be welcome (or at least not unwelcome) to various recipient(s) depending on individual preferences.
Accordingly, there is a need for methods for reducing occurrences of nuisance calls in a manner that does not block all first-time, infrequent or unidentifiable callers and which allows for individual user discretion of which calls are to be considered nuisance calls. Advantageously, the methods will allow for at least one call (i.e., ring sequence) from a particular caller so as to allow recipients to screen or answer the call, to uniquely determine if and when the caller is a nuisance caller and upon such determination, to block further occurrences of such calls (or optionally, select messaging and/or call treatment options for such calls.)